- This topic has 179 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Joe, come on you’re better than this. You understand that horses in the main don’t understand they’re racing and are using their flight response.
Not sure he is, Kev.
Have a watch of awkward devil Major Crispies in his recent hands and heels outing. He’s not running better in that sphere because the jockey isn’t allowed to whip him – he’s getting closer because his rivals aren’t being whipped. On-the-bridle backclass becomes more important than current maximum (i.e. on and off the bridle) ability.
It’s incredibly frustrating to watch when you’re familiar with the horses involved and know that they can and can’t do with the benefit of the whip.
https://www.racingpost.com/results/40/nottingham/2019-06-05/732466
I personally find this race a great example of why whipless racing is a bad thing. It’s a display of horses galloping rather than a competitive sport.
Gingertipster:
Am aware of your own views on the whip, Drone; which is why I was surprised by your suggestion of a trial.Here’s why:
Steeplechasing:
What’s the point of speculating as to how any horse would perform in a whipless race? Nobody knows.Indeed, no one knows yet everyone has an opinion; which simply returns me to my original point that whipless trials might, just might, add some objectivity to a horribly subjective matter
Over and out: I hope all are fine tonight after racing in horrendous conditions today, particularly those who were asked to entertain us jumping obstacles at Southwell
What’s the point of speculating as to how any horse would perform in a whipless race? Nobody knows. Because some horses resent the whip or some are ‘lazy’, who’s to say that they might not at some point realise they no longer get hit when the pressure is on. If that happened, might they race more ‘honestly’ and happily?
Whipless races could just as easily increase the competitive nature of races in the long term.
“Just as easily”, you can not be serious! LOL
What’s the point of speculating in any race how any horse would perform, Joe? Nobody “knows” how any horse in any race is going to perform, but from studying form we can get an excellent idea of the probability of how horses perform.
It’s all about the probability of how horses perform and probability of what will happen in whipless racing.
Do you not think that if your scenario of even lazy horses performing better without the whip were true, it would’ve already happened? At some point in time in the last hundreds of years history of horse racing, surely one trainer would’ve found out they perform better without the whip… and then won everything?
There is nothing in today’s rules to say a jockey has to use the whip anyway… When a horse performs better without the whip (sometimes called “tender handling”) that is exactly how that particular horse is ridden today. When any horse does not run as well with the whip as it does without, there is be no point using it, therefore it is not used. Remember Harchibald? Some horses don’t need the whip to show their best and therefore don’t have the whip. Some do need the whip to show their best, but you don’t want them to show their bests. If fewer horses will be able to show their bests what is the probability of it being more competitive?
If watching a horse who’s lazy find plenty for the whip, what is the probability of it finding less without it?
Or to put it another way:
(Either straight away or “at some point”)what is the probability of a lazy sort performing better without the whip?
imo Lazy is lazy. Anyone can see that (given the usual time to respond) when a lazy sort is encouraged with the whip it’ll find plenty. You can also see that when the same horse is encouraged less often it finds less. Therefore, the probability must surely be the lazy (but at the moment genuine) racehorse will find very little without the whip, because it doesn’t have to.
With so many types of racehorse being disadvantaged by whipless racing, it is obvious to me there’s a massive probability of less competitive racing.
Suspect there will be some that show something similar to the old whip flight response… at least for a short time before going truly temperamental. Replacing the whip with a greater, at risk response might work. Perhaps on the training gallops every time the rider makes a particular sound, the horse is deliberately scared by something unpleasant from behind. Therefore – when hearing the same sound shouted by a jockey on the racecourse – has what looks like the flight/whip response… Do you prefer deliberately scareing horses with something unpleasant to using the soft, safe whip?
Value Is EverythingYou say: Do you not think that if your scenario of even lazy horses performing better without the whip were true, it would’ve already happened? At some point in time in the last hundreds of years history of horse racing, surely one trainer would’ve found out they perform better without the whip… and then won everything?
Some trainers will always have known certain horses will do better if not hit; that doesn’t mean these horses win everything.
I’m not talking about horses finding new leases of life overnight. It could take a full season, maybe longer. Some might respond, some won’t. Maybe none will. We don’t know.
You call horses lazy? Why? The reason I used quote marks when I typed ‘lazy’ is because it’s supposition, or an easy handle to stick on a horse. How about ‘resentful’, ‘afraid’, ‘Smart’? I strongly suspect many of these horses responded all-out to the whip when they began racing but quickly learned that being driven through the pain barrier toward bleeding lungs or ulcers or busted tendons wasn’t really something they wanted to repeat. Some of the ‘lazy’ still respond. Many of the ‘ungenuine’, I suspect, should really have been branded ‘smart’ and decided a few whip strokes are much preferable to the stress of going through that pain barrier.
And how do you define competitive? The race LS3 put up didn’t make for great viewing with horses all over the track and raw kids trying to keep them straight and drive them home. But the distances were very tight, the first 4 covered by a length – isn’t that a competitive finish?
Without the whip, pro jockeys will get their acts together pretty quickly I’d say and adapt style and tactics. I’d much sooner see a highly tactical race won by the best ride than won by the horse who is most afraid of the whip.
Your final question is simply daft and so straw mannish you’d better get some asbestos around it in this heatwave.
Anyway, As Drone says, every silly season the subject comes up and the positions of all regular contributors are well known and seemingly not open to change by debate. I doubt there’s more I can usefully add.
No straw man here.
The soft, safe whip makes most horses go faster, Joe.
Or to turn it around: When the whip is banned horses will be going slower.
Therefore, trainers finding something that replicates that flight response will have a massive advantage.
If you do not believe trainers will try to gain an advantage, it is you who is “simply daft”.
Personally, I’d rather the soft, safe whip than the things that will replace it.Value Is EverythingSurely everybody wants to see all horses perform at their best, within reason. As GT says a good number never will if the whip is banned.
I’d much sooner see a highly tactical race won by the best ride than won by the horse who is most afraid of the whip.
All together, now….. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Don’t you want those big lovely horseyworseys to be fwightened of the soft, safe whippy?
And yet you love the sport that kills horses so much, you named yourself after it, Steeplechasing.
I guess we’ve come full circle again, Joe.
Personally, I’d rather see a soft, safe whip than horses being scared in other more dangerous ways in to going faster – which will be inevitable if the whip is banned.
If it comes to animal welfare I’d rather the hard, injury making, killer obstacles be banned than the soft, safe whip. For me, to be the other way would be simply daft.
Value Is EverythingSome trainers will always have known certain horses will do better if not hit; that doesn’t mean these horses win everything.
I’m not talking about horses finding new leases of life overnight. It could take a full season, maybe longer. Some might respond, some won’t. Maybe none will. We don’t know.
You call horses lazy? Why?
Why? Because it is the nearest human word I can think of to describe what seems to happen. Do you know one better? Doesn’t matter what the name of what happens is, anyway; just that it happens. A horse that clearly has more ability to give once the encourager is used – lazy. There might be another word more appropriate in horsey language, but unfortunately I can not talk to the animals. Dolittle may be a good description of my life, but am not a doctor.
I’ll try to explain myself in easier terms.
You are in favour of banning the whip.
You are advocating that we don’t know how they’ll respond. You believe banning the whip might make horses run faster, even those we sometimes call “lazy” (that currently find plenty for its use) might in the end run faster because (with your way of thinking) they then enjoy racing more.What I was saying is although it’s true we don’t KNOW how they’ll respond (in that “know” means 100% sure) what we can do is look at probability of how they’ll respond without it, by studying how horses respond to it.
If even the horses we think of as “lazy” (the ones that in particular seem to find plenty for its use) eventually (given time) run faster without the whip… Why has this not been found out by a trainer at some point during the hundreds of years history of horse racing? It would’ve only taken one trainer in the whole history of racing! Because if even the so called lazy horses eventually do run faster without the whip; then it stands to reason a trainer would have an advantage running the vast majority of his/her string without the whip against all the other trainers who do use it. If not using the whip makes them go faster, why do young horses – who have never had the whip used on them before – increase their speed when it’s used? Nobody tells them, it’s just instinct. All these things need to be taken in to account when posing the question of whether not using it at all might eventually make the horse run faster?
So… Yes, there might be a chance of “lazy” horses – given time – running faster without the whip; but – given everything we do know about the whip – it must surely be highly unlikely? You’re clutching at straws. Maybe jockeys should whip the horse from the start – so they go slower – and then not whip them in the closing stages – so they go faster.
If only wanting to deal with what we know and not probabilities, I could say why not keep the whip because we don’t know; the vast majority of horses might love being whipped. I know I do! LOL
Value Is EverythingOh Ginge, did you have to write that last sentance, I’m stuck with that in my head for good 😱
Without whips overall race times might be a little slower, on average, but I reckon only marginally. The whip is really only used to delay them slowing down when tired at end of a race.
Does it matter if they go half a second slower on average?
What other ‘ways’ are you referring to GT?
There will be consequences to banning the soft, safe whip which those for its ban don’t seem to have thought through. One is that any trainer managing to replicate the current flight response of the soft, safe whip will gain an advantage.
As I’ve already said; an example:
Perhaps on the training gallops every time the rider makes a particular sound, the horse is deliberately scared by something unpleasant from behind. Therefore – when hearing the same sound shouted by a jockey on the racecourse – has what looks like the flight/whip response.If needing more explanation:
On the gallops a particular sound made by the rider is followed in quick succession by a pain on the same spot as the soft, safe whip currently strokes. The horse associating that sound with pain and – because of that association… On raceday when the jockey uses the same sound, the horse expecting pain on the bum reproduces the flight response – even though no pain is administered on the racecourse. Thus gaining an advantage which although may seem small – when taken throughout a season would make a massive difference in the amount of races won. And/or could also be used in order to improve a horse’s performance once the money is down.Important to add: This type of painful, unfair advantage does not currently occur, because the flight response is already there; by using the soft, safe whip which is available to every jockey.
Value Is EverythingWithout whips overall race times might be a little slower, on average, but I reckon only marginally. The whip is really only used to delay them slowing down when tired at end of a race.
Does it matter if they go half a second slower on average?
That sounds very naive to me, David. If “The whip is really only used to delay them slowing down when tired at end of a race”… How come – in slowly run races where they’re quickening in the final two furlongs all the way to the line – the whip is still used and seems to have the affect of horses going faster?
In reality: Whips have the affect of the horse quickening (taking less time to reach a fast pace) than it would without the whip… As well as delaying them slowing down once reaching that optimum speed.
However; if it was only that every horse in every race would be around “half a second slower on average” – then I’d agree it would be worth banning the whip. Trouble is it’s not a case of just the amount horses appear to gain when the whip is used. In practice a lot of horses need the whip in order to show anything like what they are capable of?… Zero to half a length is only what one section of the horse population will do; the best section who travel well throughout the race and try almost as hard for hands and heels as they do with the whip. However, the considerable number of horses like Beat The Bank would be many lengths below what they could do with the whip… Then there’s how pace will have a far greater affect on the result. One who’s unsuited by the pace can not get in to the race; much, much more than half a length difference! And then you’ve got the temperamental sorts which practically refuse to race or have the ability to win and then down tools, idling badly potentially – tens of lengths difference and that’s if consenting to race at all.
No! Some will be no difference, some half a second, some two or three, some five, some ten, some fifty, some will refuse to race at all. How the XXXX can that be described as “half a second on average”?
Value Is EverythingHow many times was Enable hit by Frankie? I saw one smack inside the final two furlongs. It was one of the greatest finishes this sport has ever seen in my opinion. Virtually whip free if you look at the winner and she took a bit to get going today. But a good jockey knows what he is riding and good horse will also pick up for hands and heels.
And how far would poor old flat out inferior Crystal Ocean have been beaten by the idling winner without the full quota of strikes? 3l+ imo.
LOL at the BHA handicapping wallah deciding yesterday’s result vindicates his view of CO being the world’s best horse by the way. The side-on shots clearly show Enable swinging the lead until he comes alongside.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.